If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"The environmental organization "Sortir du nucléaire" is measured in transit by its own account in a radius of two meters higher radiation: According to her was the immediate burden on police, protesters and driver 1.65 micro Sievert per hour. It is so natural about fourteen times the radiation exposure. "This shipment is a rolling Chernobyl," said Philippe Guiter, Secretary General of the rail union Sud Rail. This time had therefore refused driver to drive the Castor trains, then managers would have to take over the French railways."

1.65microSv/hr equates to a yearly dose (when exposed to it for 24 hours per day 365 days per year) of 14.5 mSv.

Less than the reportable level for a nuclear worker and certainly less than many people around the world get from normal background radiation.

Because they are only in the vicinity of the cask for a short time (certainly only a few hours per day) then the total dose they will receive will be much less than the normal background dose they will get that year.

And remember, the dose rate will fall off as a function of the square of the distance. So if you double the distance from the cask from 2 to 4m, the dose rate drops by a factor of 4.

Anyone living by the railway won't have anything to worry about either, their dose rate will be measured in fractions of a microSv, if it can even be measured.

I knew there was something bugging me about the 1.65microSV/hr dose rate. At 2m it should be less than 1. Either someone messed up their readings (uncalibrated detector) or the shielding calculations were incorrect.

And there is no evidence that this dose causes cancer.

Stand near some granite and the dose will approach this value.

Go to Iran, Brazil, parts of Africa and the natural background radiation dose is higher than this with no measurable increase in the cancer rate.

Thousands of children and babies killed around nuclear power plants? Yeah, right. PROVE IT or fuck off.

Q, you seem very good at renewable energy, stick to what you know, not what you read in the gutter press.

For someone who can sound quite intelligent at times, you do type some crap.